On 2002-01-28 14:26, "ext Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
wrote:
> On 2002-01-28 13:57, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> If this literal happens to be stored in the same memory location as the
>> other is completely irrelevant. In as much as they are being interpreted
>> differently they *are* different literals.
>
> Exactly.
Oops. I take that back. The fact that they have different interpretations
per different (datatype) contexts means that they are different *lexical
forms*, but not necessarily different literals. A literal is just a string
until it is placed into some datatype context -- at which time it becomes
a (potential) member of the lexical space of that datatype. It may in fact
not be a member of the lexical space, but that is the context for its
interpretation.
Thus, literals are not lexical forms. Literals do not denote values.
Literals are just a piece of the puzzle that will result in an
interpretation that provides a value.
It is the TDL that denotes the value. The literal is just half of
the "equation".
So, if a literal shares many contexts, by merit of its string identity,
so what. That doesn't mean that each context denotes the same value.
Thus, TDLs don't care about where the literal label resides (i.e. on
a tidy or untidy node) only that it is obtainable, along with a datatype
URI in order to achieve an interpretation and attain a value.
(and again, that doesn't mean we want tidy literal nodes, only that
the TDL based interpretation of typed literals is agnostic about it)
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com